Hansard, 1988-06-29

Question No. 1 will be asked at 2.00 o'clock this afternoon.

The following question stood in the name of Mr Chiam See Tong - 2. To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry if he will state the reasons for his change of mind in not accompanying the Economic Development Board team to America to canvass for American investments and what he exactly meant when he told the press that "he had other more important things to do".

Question No. 2, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at the time of my scheduled trip, investigations into Mr Hendrickson's activities and his links with Mr Francis Seow had not been completed. The Parliamentary debate on the issue was still in progress. 1DPM asked me to remain in Singapore to help deal with the problem. I did.

11.02 am

"to amend the Public Utilities Act (Chapter 261 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Trade and Industry (BG Lee Hsien Loong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Electrical Workers and Contractors Licensing Act (Chapter 89 of the Revised Edition)", presented by BG Lee Hsien Loong; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question (28th June, 1988), "That the Bill be now read a Second time.". - [Minister for National Development]. Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, eight in ten Singaporeans now live in HDB flats and surrounded by all manner of rules and regulations which, though necessary, are perceived to be restrictive and inhibitive. If residents show little interest over the condition and quality of the physical environment in the estates, it could be, Sir, because they feel that they could not do anything to change it even if they wanted to, for they have no control over or any say in shaping the kind of environment they want. It is for this reason too, Sir, I think that anti-social acts against common property in the estates continue because there is no sense of ownership and the sense of belonging is still weak. So the proposed setting up of Town Councils can change all this. Looked at from the viewpoint of community development, I see them as having a tremendous potential towards building a greater sense of belonging among residents, more cohesive communities and a certain kind of consensus among dwellers. If residents and councillors are given greater leeway in determining the kind of environment that suits their needs and wants, there is an increased possibility of them taking more pride in their surroundings and thus treat them with more care and respect, as they are the inheritors of their own decisions and participation. Town Councils will mean that our citizens will have to participate in discussions on what has to and can be done. Invariably there will be needs which differ and views which vary or even conflict. It would therefore be up to the leaders of the community to seek commonly acceptable alternatives and arrive at some compromise or consensus. In the process, our people will begin to understand and be aware of each other's needs and peculiarities and learn to work with one another. This may not be easy at the beginning, but I believe that with experience and strong and wise leadership we can succeed. And this, to my mind, Sir, is another plus point in Town Councils, ie, the development of local leadership in the estates. This point has been alluded to by 1DPM yesterday and it bears repetition and elaboration. Sir, for nearly 30 years the Government has provided citizens with most of their needs to a point where some quarters argue that the Government has indeed over-provided. In the process, the bureaucracy has crept into almost every aspect of the citizens' lives. All the citizen needs to do is to ask or to complain. The development of local leadership is therefore stifled as decisions are taken at higher levels and the various rules and regulations restrict the exercise of local initiative. Following this, Sir, is the growth of a kind of the dependency syndrome when citizens begin to depend on the Government for everything they wish for, even unrealistic demands. So there is much to be said for the development of local leadership if we are to be more self-reliant and able to take care of ourselves without having to continually rely on the Government all the time. In times of stress and disorder especially, the existence of such a pool of leadership will be an asset to the country. Given the kind of society that we live in, Sir, the kind of leadership that needs to be developed is important. That they will have to be honest and committed are prerequisites. But more than this, they will also have to be men and women who understand the sensitivities and differences that exist among us. They will have to be fair, firm and above all, be able to manage conflict when it occurs. They will also have to be more realistic. The demands from such leadership, Sir, will be great. I would like to suggest that we monitor closely our selection of such leaders from the ground. To be sure, the MPs will have to lead and be the catalyst in the community. But it is the local leaders who live in the community and who presumably knows the fabric of that community better, who will have to assist in the guiding, persuading and explaining and, do much of the footwork on the ground. Because of these onerous tasks, Sir, perhaps society could think of ways to recognize and reward their services, not necessarily monetary ones. In all, Sir, I can see the Town Councils, if proceeded wisely and with care, contributing to community development by bringing about a greater sense of belonging among residents, greater social cohesion and a more socially robust environment in our housing estates. Even if this is the only reason for supporting the Town Council concept, I think this is enough for us to do so. I support the Town Council Bill now before us, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. This is not because I am the Chairman of Ang Mo Kio South Town Council, but because I see the merits in the establishment of the Town Council itself. After 20 months of experience together with my Town Councillors in the running of the Town Council, we are more convinced that there is a role for residents to be involved in the management of housing estates. This will bring about a new dimension in the participation of residents in the shaping of the future of the estates. The setting up of the Town Council will introduce a new chapter in the management of housing estates. Now that people will be more involved in the management of the housing estates, they will have an avenue through which they can elicit and solicit various viewpoints to enrich the quality of life in the neighbourhood itself. Sir, this aspect brings about a new dimension in terms of citizen participation which is essentially necessary because most of the decisions which have been made by the Housing and Development Board have been based on a top-down planning approach. Now I think through participation there is the involvement of people from a bottom-up approach in terms of planning. Through this opportunity, I see that we will be able to harness the creativity and the talents of both the professional and lay people in the management of the estate itself. I not that this is a very important aspect that we will bring about in terms of the establishment of Town Councils. With the growing problems of the management of housing estates, as I see it, there will be competing demands in terms of meeting housing services and the maintenance aspects, particularly in older housing estates. This is likely to impose a tremendous need to have a quick response to meet the needs of residents in various neighbourhoods of the housing estate. Hence I think the Town Council will provide a more personalized approach in the provision of services. This will in a way help residents to manage services and to respond quickly in terms of the support which we require. As I see it, the Housing and Development Board at the moment is unable to respond quickly to specific needs of the locality. Through the establishment of the Town Council, we hope that this aspect would be translated into reality. The other aspect in terms of contribution in the establishment of the Town Council is the creation of the ownership of people to external environment. As it is, the Housing and Development Board has provided the ownership of people for the internal environment of their homes. I see that the greatest concern is in the maintenance of the quality of the external environment of the various housing estates. In this respect the Town Council will be able to undertake various activities which will enrich the external environment. More often than not, the external environment is see as a public property and people need to be encouraged to take pride in terms of their external environment and this is possible with the establishment of the Town Council itself. Sir, there are a number of areas of concern as a result of the establishment of the Town Council. I hope the Minister will be able to provide clarifications. Town Council's work should not be confined mainly to the maintenance of the housing estates. I see the Bill itself provides a very strong emphasis on this. In confining Town Council to this area, it will make Town Council to be Area Office. It is just changing its coat and then terming itself as a Town Council. I hope this does not happen because if it does, then it will probably stifle the creativity and innovation by residents themselves. I feel that the Town Council's role should be more than just undertaking maintenance functions. One should encourage Town Council to undertake improvements of the estate itself. In order that it can do this task, there is a necessity for Government to allocate funds to the Town Council or the Town Council can apply for grants set aside for the improvements of housing estates. This area of participation in the improvement of the housing estate, is a new role which should be emphasized. If the Town Council is allowed to undertake in this area of work, it will provide more visibility of its work and the achievements of the Town Council. This is what residents are looking forward too. In fact, they are asking: what is the difference betweeen the HDB Area Office and the Town Council? Is there going to be any visible difference in terms of their efforts? I feel that unless funds are made available to the Town Council, they would not be able to undertake this aspect of innovative task. The other concern basically relates to the management of older housing estates. In Ang Mo Kio South Town Council, we have been managing rental flats together with older 3-room flats. Likewise, in many other older housing estates, there will be both rental and 3-room properties. People are concerned whether the grants and subsidies provided for the management of these properties will be maintained by the Government ie, whether the same level of subsidies will continue to be given for the maintenance of these properties. There is concern among Town Councillors that there will be a burden and a financial stress on the Town Council if they are to manage a lot of properties, both rental and 3-room flats. This is an area where I feel we need assurance from the Government that grants and subsidies which are provided, as it has been given, will continue to be given in the interest of the efficient management of these estates. Otherwise I see that most of the Town Councils in the older housing estates will face the burden of managing efficiently. The other aspect which I would like to raise concerns the monitoring of the work of the Town Council. To what extent would the work of the Town Council be monitored? Is the Town Council going to be answerable to a supervisory body? If this is the case, to what extent would the supervisory body be controlling the Town Council? I realize that in setting up the Town Council the end objective is to enable the Town Council to function independently I hope that the Town Council will be allowed to function as independently as possible and they should be made accountable to the residents who support the Town Council. The other area of concern is to ensure the voluntary spirit in terms of the work in the Town Council. We have to carefully examine the implementation of monetary incentives for those who are involved in the work of the Town Council. I am afraid if there are disparities in terms of the provision of monetary incentives between and amongst Town Councils, it may cause problems and pressures amongst different Town Councils. I hope the voluntary participation of Town Councillors can be maintained at its best and they should be encouraged to be involved on the basis of voluntary effort. They belong to the community and the spirit of voluntarism needs to be ensured so that the Town Councillors themselves feel that they have a role to play effectively in terms of the improvement of their neighbourhood. I trust that the Government will provide more social incentives, like recognizing the efforts of the Town Councillors in terms of other means than monetary rewards and incentives. My Town Councillors have expressed this concern. What is the basis and yardstick that one would decide on the appropriation of monetary incentives to different Town Councillors? There may be a situation where one might create more dissension amongst Town Councils because of the varied amounts of monetary rewards that are going to be accorded. The other important area of concern is that in the event of the mismanagement of Town Council through no fault of the residents, would such Town Council be helped by the Government so that the service and maintenance that are accorded would still be carried out. There may be circumstances that are beyond the control of the residents. Residents may be cooperative and supportive of the Town Council but somehow there may be errant Town Councillors and managers of Town Councils who mismanage the funds of the Town Council for which residents have no control. I am wondering whether Town Councils facing this setback or crisis, which is unanticipated, could be helped by the Housing Board in the event that there is a need to do so. The final concern is that there is a need for a good cadre of staff to manage Town Council. Volunteers, the best will that they have in volunteering their services to Town Council, we cannot do away with a good cadre of staff. I am wondering whether the Government will be deploying an efficient and conscientious cadre of staff who are now available to the pilot Town Councils. Will these staff be redeployed to the various Town Councils that are going to be set up? I note that there is also a general concern amongst the staff that the establishment of the Town Council would have implications on their future tenure in terms of work. It has also created anxiety about their future career in HDB. I wish to clarify whether there are plans to ensure that there is minimal disruption in the livelihood of some of the staff who have been working with Housing Board. 11.22 am

I am obliged to you, Mr Speaker. Sir, we all know that the HDB is going to divest some of its powers in regard to maintenance management of its estates. I believe that the HDB is not doing this out of altruistic reasons or the desire to promote the growth of democracy. There are other reasons. One of them is, I believe, the HDB has grown too large, too cumbersome. Like the dinosaur of old, it is buckling under its own weight. It has become unwieldy and cannot function efficiently and meaningfully. So it has taken steps to give up some of its functions and perhaps the most convenient functions it can give up are the troublesome ones like maintenance and management of its housing estates. The second reason I can think of, as has been mentioned, is that housing estates will get old, they would not get newer, and trouble will multiply with age. Maintenance repairs will get more difficult. Why not let somebody else take over the trouble? I believe the HDB is managing something like 640,000 units of flats today. Just imagine when the flats become troublesome in 10 years' time, the management and maintenance of these flats can be quite onerous. Just to give you an analogy. We all own cars. At least all of us here. You buy a new car you get trouble-free use of it for three years. Fourth year, fifth year, you get a bit of problems cropping up. You can get them repaired. The sixth year onwards, you will find that there are more and more engine problems. You come to a stage where you say, "I might as well sell away the car. Get rid of it." The person who buys that car from you, if he is lucky, he manages to get the parts changed and get the car in reasonably good condition and he gets a good second-hand car. But if the car has got major problems like the crank case or the cylinder casing, if it is cracked, then it is an irreparable fault. You may have to scrap the car and that is where the real problem comes. This divestment of maintenance is like selling away an old car. Of course, the Town Councils that take over the estate, if they are lucky, there are no major faults, they can get along well. But if there is a big fault, an irreparable fault, then they are burdened with something very troublesome indeed. Potong Pasir Estate is not that old. I believe the residents came in to stay around 1984, at the time of the general elections. Some may have come in late 1983. So the estate is about four years old. And what do we have? The earth beneath the blocks of flats has started to sink. So that is a major fault. With the HDB around, we can get the problem solved. Can you imagine. If I take over Potong Pasir and the Town Council, just four years, a very brand new estate, we have already such a major fault? What happens in 10 years' time? I do not know. There may be more serious troubles. I think probably the most compelling reason why the Government is having this Town Councils Bill is, I believe, political. Why did the Government not come up with this idea in 1972 or 1976 when I first took part in the elections? Because in those days, the PAP was firmly entrenched. They did not have to take any corrective measures. But in 1980, the wind of change was already there and by 1984 real trouble for the PAP has really cropped up. So we have all kinds of change of the law. We have GRCs. We have yesterday, for no reason at all, increment of the deposit for candidates from $1,500 to $4,000 and now, today and yesterday, we are discussing about this Town Council. The main thrust of the PAP's political line is telling the people of Singapore, "You must get good men. You must get graduates to stand for elections." This kind of a line has been overplayed. Again, in this Town Council concept, the same theme is promoted. Yesterday, we heard the First Deputy Prime Minister say, you do not get an untrained person to pilot a jumbo jet. He compared the jumbo jet with the state and the pilot to probably administrators of the state or MPs. But he has taken the wrong analogy, a completely wrong analogy. The pilot is like the surgeon, doctor. They are specialist people. You do not want an MP who is not trained as a surgeon to operate on you, open up your stomach, would you? Cer- tainly not. When you elect a Town Councillor or elect an MP, he is an administrator, a manager. His duty is to manage. How do you manage? If you cannot do it, you get others to do it for you, the experts to do it for you. The Prime Minister, when he took over office as Prime Minister in Singapore, how old was he? 34 years old. What training has he got in running a state, a country? None. Nil. And yet he managed. Singapore today has been a place which many people have praised the Prime Minister for it. But what training has he got?

Have you got his brains?

What we want is good managers, people who can use the expertise of others. For one, I do not think I want the Member for Whampoa as an Economic Advisor. What about Mr Ronald Reagan? He was an actor, movie actor; he was a radio broadcaster. And yet they elected him to be the Governor of California, and yet he performed well, so well that people of the United States made him the President, not for one term, two terms (the maximum number of terms that he can hold office).

But look at the deficits.

Don't blame him for that. He probably took over a bad situation. But in any event, the people of the United States still want him for a second term. He was reputed to be a person being able to choose good advisors. And I think the first lot of PAP leaders, had a good sense of choosing good advisors. They asked for help and help was forthcoming from the World Bank. I believe they sent for Dr Albert Winsemius. He gave good advice. The Government took the advice, filled up industrial estates, industrialized Singapore, and we were on our way. So this theme of playing up on so-called people with experience and that the Town Council is a place, a school, where you can learn the art of administration, I do not think it holds water at all. This is just all political talk to put the Opposition at bay. Of course, it is easy for the PAP to catch hold of people with degrees, doctorates, specially from the universities, and parade them before the electorate and say, "Look, what a good team we have." But I do not think the PAP should play too much on this line because what we want are people who represent the interests of those people who elected them. I think we should have a mix in Parliament, not all graduates. In particular, I think we should have workers in Parliament. Who can better represent the interests of the workers than workers themselves? People from the factory shop floors, taxi-drivers, people who work at construction sites, all kinds of workers must be represented in Parliament. Why do we need university graduates? What do university graduates know about the problems of the workers?

What do lawyers do?

You say that workers are not knowledgeable. But I can tell you that if there is a problem involving them, for example, the taxi-drivers, no person can voice a better case for them than a taxi-driver himself.

You cannot either.

So I think it is a fallacy to say that we must only have people with MBA or some kind of high-sounding degrees to be elected as MPs. So this Town Council concept, I believe, is political. I would suggest that MPs elected at a parliamentary election should not be made Town Councillors. If that were the case, I would support this Bill. The Town Council must comprise representatives from the residents of the estate itself. They have a separate election and elect their own Town Councillors. Then I would support that. There are reasons for not getting MPs involved. Members of Parliament have a different role from Town Councillors or local government officers or municipal representatives. MPs have a different role from people who are operating municipal councils or Town Councils. I believe MPs operate at a different level. They operate at a national level. Town Councillors and local government representatives work at a municipal or Town Council level and are involved in the day-to-day administration of the council, whereas MPs are elected more to give direction to the nation. A party is elected because of its policy. The people may want the party to represent them so that the nation can move in a particular direction. The PAP first came into power on a socialist platform. People of Singapore voted them in because they thought that was good for Singapore and so they went on a socialist principle, up to lately, of course. Some people may want to vote people like Margaret Thatcher, free enterprise, the capitalist line. You vote her in. So that is the purpose of voting Members of Parliament and a particular party. But you do not vote a Town Councillor to change the direction or have a national policy in regard whether to foreign policy or to national policies on education or defence, or how you should have a relationship with your neighbours. These are not the work of town councillors. These are the work of Members of Parliament. So there is a distinct different role. And now what do we have? If this Town Councils Bill is passed, the voter will be voting both an MP as well as a Town Councillor. In fact, I think that is unconstitutional because an MP is not supposed to hold an office of profit. If an MP becomes a full-time Town Councillor and he is a public officer under the law, he is like a Government servant. So I would say that he is defined as holding an office of profit, and that is unconstitutional. I think we should not get our roles mixed just up because you hope that you will keep the Opposition at bay and for political gains at the next election. MP is involved with strategy on a broad basis, whereas a town Councillor or a City Councillor is more involved with, I say, ractical matters. It is the actual implementation of day-to-day administration of estate. So I would urge this House perhaps even to put this Bill at bay for a while and see whether we can make Town Councils non-political. We should not politicize Town Councils. We should make it non-political, a body which is above politics, a body which is purely formed to take care of the interests of the Town itself. And I believe the residents can do it. It is not necessary to have the guiding hand of a Member of Parliament because the residents who reside there are going to reside there for a long time. It is in their interest to vote in persons who are responsible, who can take care of their affairs. And no other person can take care of their affairs better than those people who have got property there, those people who are living there, those people who will, in fact, have all their activities in their estate after their working hours. An MP is, in fact, an outsider. I have not known of any Member of Parliament coming from the same housing estate in which he is representing. An hon. Member: Why not?

I am talking about HDB housing estates, not private homes. Under this system, the residents still do not have full control of their affairs. The political control is still very much there because the MPs coming from the political parties still have to head their committees. They do not really have a free hand. And to say that the Opposition can have a truly free hand to manage things in a Town Council, I do not think that is completely true because the definition of "common property" is still very vague. Now, we have a lot of problems. Take an example, if we want to hold a dinner in an open field, say in Potong Pasir. We have to get permission from the HDB. We have to get permission from the CID to get a public entertainment licence and, perhaps, if we want to have banners, again we have to get permission. And if we want to hold a procession, again we have to get permission. Our hands are still very tight. And if that particular field is not designated as a common property, we still have to get permission from the HDB because the HDB is still the owner of the land, it is still the owner of the common property. So in actual fact, what are Town Councillors? Town Councillors, technically, are nothing more than the agents of the HDB to do the cleaning and the repair of buildings in HDB estates. That is all. Because the residents there do not own any property other than their flats which are on lease. This is completely different from the management corporations of private apartments and condominiums. In that case, under the Land Titles (Strata) Act, the owners of the units of flats or condominiums there actually own the common property. If the building should collapse tomorrow, due to an earthquake or some other disaster, the owners there still own the land, one fraction of the land. And that is the difference between private housing estates and HDB housing estates. So there is in fact an inconsistency or a contradiction there because you do not own the property and you are asked to manage it, to take care of it. So what is the true position of the Town councillors? They are the agents of the HDB. But, of course, we have a law which we are going to make in Parliament giving the Town Councillors certain statutory powers which are, in fact, very artificial. They do not own the property. You ask them to manage. But since you ask them to manage, we give you some powers. That is the real situation. As I said, it is best if the Town Councillors are above politics. I was just looking through the Ang Mo Kio East Town Council. If you look at the membership, we have got the Chairman who is a Member of Parliament; Vice-Chairman who is also a Member of Parliament, and another member who is a Member of Parliament. The rest are all either Chairman of the CCC, CCMC or RCs. In other words, the whole Town Council is very political in nature. An hon. Member: RCs are not.

The RCs are, of course, supportive of the PAP. Otherwise, they would not be chosen as members of the RCs. I have not seen any Opposition member being chosen as a member of the RCs. If this is the case, how can we promote harmony, how can we promote unity, how can we promote a good relationship in the Town Council area? In fact, there will be a dichotomy. In fact, there will be a polarization of residents in the Town Council. Assuming the PAP wins in a town council area with 55% of the votes, then there are 45% who are not in favour of the PAP. This is a real situation. You look at the statistics of the last elections. Many areas were close-fought contest in the last elections. The PAP coming in with 51-54%. That is very common.

This time it's 70%.

In other words, nearly half the residents there do not support the PAP. And what do we have? We have a Town Council which is, in fact, PAP controlled. How are you going to get harmony when there are people who are not supportive of the PAP? But if you remove the political element, then it is their own members who are elected and they will give full support to the Town Council. And they can really build up a harmonious relationship in the Town itself. I also think the Town Council should be above politics for another reason, for the sake of continuity. MPs can come, MPs can go. But we have a set of people there who have continuity. Out of so many Town Councillors, two of them may be phased out and two new ones in. But in any event, there will be continuity in the Town Council. It is just like in the civil service. Ministers can come, Ministers can go but the civil servants are still always intact. I think this is a good point. I think if an area has been designated a Town Council, it should not be changed. In principle, it should be left intact and not merged with another Town Council just because the ruling party feels, "Oh, they are too supportive of the Opposition." We hope none of this gerry mandering will be involved. Because once if you have got a town council concept, there must be some form of permanency.

11.48 am I think if the PAP is sincere in wanting to promote real democracy, then they should allow the residents of HDB estates to be more involved and less and less of the politicans should play a part in the affairs of HDB estates. As long as the politicians are there, as long as the politicians head the Town Council, the crutch will still be there. You cannot really promote self-reliance. Unless you allow the residents really to take care of their own affairs without this political crutch, political control, we cannot build up real self-reliance, real independence, on the part of the residents. I think this is an important thing and I hope the PAP will not use the Town Council concept for the elections. What about the facilities? Assuming an opposition wins in a Town Council area, will they be accorded all the Yes? Is there any assurance given? Can the HDB give that assurance? Because the HDB still has a lot of say in the Town Council. The Minister has a big say in Town Council. Unless we get that assurance, we will still feel uneasy. Because under clause 44, if there is no Town Council to maintain the place, the Minister can appoint somebody to take care of the Town Council. So the Government still has a very big say as far as the Town Council is concerned. If there is no real divestment of power, I think the Opposition will still feel unsafe. I shall, of course, not touch at all the problems in regard to common property. I am sure there are many of them, and I think the most important one is in regard to the common property. Because the common property has not been really defined, particularly to land. The common property in regard to common corridors, lifts, roofs, these are easily identifiable. But when it comes to land, as far as I can see, all that the definition of "common property" says is "so much of the land". But how much? Is the HDB going to have a map drawn out and say, "Well, these are the areas which are common property." Because, as far as I can see at Potong Pasir Estate, there are still vast areas of empty land. Are they common property? They are adjacent to the buildings. But are they designated "common property"? I hope the Minister will clarify this point.

Sir, the First Deputy Prime Minister delivered a very significant speech yesterday. From what he said, it is clear to me that what the Government seeks to achieve by the Town Councils Bill is to establish local government in the HDB town. Although the institution is to be called a Town Council, nevertheless, it is government at the local or constituency level. This is part of the process of decentralization of government and specifically it involves the devolution of power and authority from the HDB to the Town Council. Initially, the Town Council will be vested with limited power and authority, ie, it has the power and authority to manage, control, maintain and improve the common areas and certain facilities in the HDB town. But I can envisage that the local authority will take on greater responsibility in the years ahead. This will come about because of the experience of administering the Town Council and the town itself. Or it will be found necessary and rational to expand the power and authority of the Town Council. Viewed in this light, Sir, the Town Councils Bill is a watershed in our political development, as it is a significant step forward in establishing and nurturing sound and relevant democratic traditions. Democratic practice is enhanced through the gradual and pragmatic approach. Specifically, the Town Council will serve two main political objectives. Firstly, to allow direct participation in the political process for the residents and, secondly, to test whether or not the Member of Parliament has administrative and leadership qualities. The residents and particularly the voters have an important role to play in the local government of their town. They elect the Member of Parliament and therefore the Chairman of the Town Council. The voters will have a direct say as to who should lead the Town Councillors, responsible for the maintenance and improvement of their living conditions. Their physical comforts, quality of life, the social and cultural environment will be affected by their choice of the Chairman of the Town Council. Additionally, Sir, the residents have a role to play in creating the unique character of their Town. They can voice their views and opinions and many of them will have a direct part in the decision-making process of the Town Council. Many people have complained of the drab uniformity of HDB estates. Now they will have the opportunity to shape the Town in line with their aspirations and their creativity. Another important aspect of the Town Council is the test of the administrative and leadership qualities of the Member of Parliament. The Member for Potong Pasir in his long rambling speech, I think, wants to avoid this very issue. The Member of Parliament has a number of roles to play, including as the Member for Potong Pasir rightly mentioned, at the national level. But he is, first and foremost, a representative of the voters, of the constituency. He therefore has a vital role to play at the constituency level. The Member of Parliament as the Chairman of a Town Council will play that vital role. And voters have every right to ask the Member of Parliament: has the Member of Parliament the administrative ability to run a town? Has he the leadership to provide encouragement, guidance and advice, so that the Town Councillors will make the correct decisions which will benefit the people? Sir, you need capable persons to be Members of Parliament. I think voters should note carefully what the Member for Potong Pasir has just said. In his view, Members of Parliament can come from construction workers, taxi drivers, factory workers and others. I ask him: is he going to field such candidates in the next general elections?

Of course. What do you think?

Hence voters should note that these people, if elected, would be potential Chairmen of Town Councils. And voters should ask: are they able to run the Town Councils? Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir is quite good at showmanship, coming to Parliament, raising questions, criticizing the Government, making speeches and generally playing up to the gallery. Yes, he can be critical of the HDB. But he has no responsibility at all for the running of the Town. He can come to Parliament, ask all kinds of questions but he does not have to find solutions to these problems. This is a very easy thing to do. But after the next elections, Members of Parliament cannot be irresponsible MPs because they have to run the Town Councils. Then the capability, dedication and reliability of the MPs will be put to the test. The Bill, in my view, is a milestone in our political history. The introduction of local government will lead to participatory democracy. Residents participate in the decision-making process and they have a direct role in the running of the town. Many residents will become Town Coun- cillors and others who become members of its various committees. Under the leadership of the MP, they will have to tackle various problems. Sir, at the beginning, there are bound to be teething problems. And on this point, I would like to raise three issues with the Minister. Firstly, for the effective running of the Town Council there must be adequate administrative and financial support for the Town Council from the Government. Will there be enough offices and staff? Will there be sufficient money to implement projects? I hope the Town Council will not be handicapped in their work by such limitations imposed on them. Secondly, the Town Council will be responsible initially for the common residential and industrial properties, including the recreational, educational and cultural facilities. In pursuing their responsibilities, there are bound to be conflicts between the Town Council and the HDB. How does the Minister propose to deal with these conflicts? I hope that whenever a dispute arises, the HDB will be helpful, flexible, tolerant and accomodative in its approach to the issue. Thirdly, the residents are expected to play a vital part in the local government of their Town. May I ask, will the proceedings and deliberations of the Town Council be open to the public? Can members of the Town appear before the Town Council and its committees so that they can raise questions, voice their views, and make useful suggestions? Sir, I hope every opportunity will be given to the residents to participate actively in the government of their own Town.

Allow me, Mr Deputy Speaker, to ask for two clarifications from the Member for Serangoon Gardens.

All right.

Firstly, in regard to local government. The emphasis is on the word "government". I know the Member for Serangoon Gardens has a doctorate in Political Science. In what way can the Town Council established under the ---

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, point of order. Sir, if I understand the Standing Orders correctly, a point of clarification is when a Member stands up to clarify what he has said which has been misunderstood by somebody else in the House. It is not an opportunity for a Member to stand up and ask another Member to clarify what that Member has said and to make a speech.

Mr Chiam, what is your clarification?

My clarification is in regard to the words "local government". Can he please clarify? An hon. Member: Only as far as you have used it.

No. I believe the Member for Serangoon Gardens has said that our Town Councils are local governments. I want him to clarify in what way. How can he say that the Town Councils are local governments. That is not what I know what local government means. The other point is that he says that I have mentioned and said that we should have MPs who are construction workers, taxi drivers, and generally workers. He says that if one of these people get elected, is he going to be a potential chairman and ask to run the Town Council? Can I clarify? What is wrong with a worker being a Chairman of a Town Council?

On the first point, Sir, the Town Council will be vested with power and authority according to the Town Councils Bill, although the power will be limited.

There is no authority.

Well, they have the authority as stated in the Bill, and the Member should read it carefully.

You are maintaining offices ---

I hope the Member for Potong Pasir will read carefully the Bill. The Bill allows for the Town Council to control, manage, maintain and improve ---

Common property.

--- the common areas in the HDB.

That is not the work of a government.

And in the deliberations of a Town Council they would have to make decisions affecting the residents, and that is, in a sense, government of the HDB estates. On the second point, Sir, he did mention in his speech that there is nothing wrong to have construction workers, taxi drivers, factory hands to be Members of Parliament. But, Sir, under the Town Councils Bill, the Member of Parliament will be designated Chairman of the Town Council.

So what?

And therefore we will have such men, if elected, to be Chairmen of Town Councils. Therefore, voters have a choice, and I would say that they have to make the right choice.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if I may respond very briefly to some of the substantive points raised by the Member for Potong Pasir. I do not think we should dismiss his speech lightly because he has made some points which, in fact, we have considered seriously in deciding on the Town Councils Bill. The key point is whether an MP operating at a national level, looking after the whole country, should also have a responsibility to manage his own constituency which elected him. The Member for Potong Pasir presented the opposing view, that he should not. The Member of Parliament looks after national matters. He pontificates on issues of wide importance. He debates in Parliament, and leaves these trivial, frivolous, municipal, bothersome issues to specialists. There is an element of truth there. But it is not de facto what happens. Which MP in this House, whether on the Government side or on the Opposition side, ignores the constituency he comes from? Pays no attention to it? Which MP in this House is not intimately worried about every bus stop, every hump in the road, every drain into which a child may fall if there is a monsoon and it floods? Every time there is a debate in Parliament on the Budget, the Minister for National Development is the champion marathon runner, because he answers five times as many questions on which there are five times as many experts in this House as any other Minister. Everybody knows it. Everybody wants his answer and presses his point. And it is not just at Budget time, but at every Parliament sitting. Just look at the Questions for Oral Answer, and tabulate. Stations, bus services, roof leakage, traffic lights, location of wet markets. Which MP is not concerned? Even the Member for Potong Pasir. He has forgotten now, but the night he was elected, I remember watching him on television. He said, "We shall make Potong Pasir a model constituency."

Right. Yes.

Now he says, "I am a national MP. Potong Pasir, look after yourself." It is quite a change. So that being the de facto position, the question is, should an MP who is so concerned about his constituency, and rightly so, not also have some power over the constituency, not just to recommend, but to decide? Why should I have to ask HDB for permission to build seats for old people to sit on in the void deck? Why should HDB be the one to cough up the money to do that and to determine whether to give it to me, or to somebody else, or to give it to another project which I am also demanding of him? As MP,I want to have the right to decide and I think I am qualified to decide because I have stood to represent the people in my constituency and to look after their interests: their interests in their community, their interests nationally. It is right. If any MP stands in the next election and says, "Please elect me. I will pay no attention to municipal matters. You go and find some non-political Town Councillor on your own to manage that and you have it out with HDB should anything happen", I do not think he is going to be elected. I do not think the Member for Potong Pasir will put that in the SDP manifesto. Will he? Perhaps not. So should we or should we not put this additional responsibility on MPs ? It is a heavy responsibility, onerous, a considerable burden. It means time, effort, concen- tration, dedication. If people say, "I can't be bothered with these matters", perhaps case we should ask, "What are they bothered about? Do they have a place in Parliament at all?" That is a fundamental question. Having decided that we should devolve, the question is, should we give it to the MP or should we leave it with the HDB? The Member for Potong Pasir has a point when he says the HDB is too large, like a dinosaur, slow to move, therefore not effective and therefore we have to devolve. In different words, that is what the First Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday. It is good to have small, light, supple, quick reacting organizations instead of a big one like the HDB. I should warn the Member for Potong Pasir, however, that a dinosaur may be slow but he can be powerful and by accident he steps upon you, you are in deep trouble. So if I were him, I would not laugh at the dinosaur too much.

They are extinct.

But the HDB is not. So is it better to leave the decision with the HDB or is it better to devolve it out? I think it is better to devolve it out. I know that many MPs will be hesitant because it is a major responsibility, both PAP as well as Opposition. None expresses his fears so openly and unashamedly as the Member for Potong Pasir. But many are concerned at the additional load which they will now take on. Luckily, I do not think they will have to take it on alone. The Member for Potong Pasir says we should give responsibility to people who know the job. Taxi drivers know about taxis, workers know about conditions in their factory. He is right. Who knows best about conditions in the housing estate?

Residents.

Residents. Therefore, the MP who is elected will appoint residents to help him on the Town Council.

PAP supporters.

Or if he is Mr Chiam, I am sure he is not going to appoint any PAP supporters. Is he?

Yes.

We had better send him an application form for party membership. So the MP will stand. You elect me, I will appoint people whom I trust and I can work with, who will belong to the community. There is a provision in the Bill to make sure that a certain proportion of the Town Councillors must be residents of the constituency so that they will live with the decisions they make, not at a remote distance, but day-by-day. If you decide to cut down the tree so that the birds will fly away, you make sure you live with the sunshine and don't complain that it is too hot. That is the kind of decision which we want people to make. And if you can make that kind of decision you can be fit, maybe, to be considered to be a government. Ronald Reagan - we thank the Member for Potong Pasir again for providing such a happy example - could not have become President of the United States if he had not first become Governor of California. Everybody would have thought of him, as a "B grade movie actor". He is not a B grade President. But who would have known had he not been Governor of California?

That is a big job, Governor.

That is a big job. It is a first step. It is much smaller than being the President of the United States.

Much higher than Town Councillors.

Yes, it is a first step. In 1959 the Prime Minister was 35 years old. The Member was wrong when he said 34. Not inexperienced in five years of organizing trade unions, of debating, arguing with the colonial government, of fighting for the life of the party, and keeping on top in very turbulent times. And even then when he became Prime Minister with a team, the question was, with such a big job could he ride this and come out and bring the people of Singapore with him? Today, you cannot even deal with a little crack around the skirting of your block and you say, "That I do not want to handle. I want to be Prime Minister first." My goodness! The First Deputy Prime Minister yesterday said that if you are flying in a jumbo and a new pilot takes over who has not flown solo in a Cessna, some passengers might get worried.

Of course. I am not stupid enough to go on the plane.

There are many passengers who are worried he may become the pilot. I would say not only would the passengers be worried, some might die of fright.

Only mad people will go on board that plane!

Order. Mr Chiam, can you please stop engaging in this conversation with the General? If you have anything to say, could you address the Chair.

So I think the right thing to do is to devolve, give it to the MP, who gets his team, to run it. If it runs better, it is established, as I think the Ang Mo Kio Town Councils are established. If it goes bad, it is better to do so in a constituency than in a nation.

Sir, I rise to support the Bill. I am surprised at the stand adopted by the Member for Potong Pasir. He is not in favour of the Bill. If he is a serious opposition Member, he should capitalize on the Bill as it gives him the opportunity to run local estates, establish track records and perhaps govern Singapore one day. Does not the SDP have a long-term plan to be the alternative government of Singapore one day? Is the SDP not confident of running Town Council estates as well as PAP MPs? Sir, I have some clarifications to seek from the Minister on the Bill. Clause 9 of the Bill provides for the appointment of one Chairman and only one Vice-Chairman. Why is that so since there will normally be three MPs in a Town Council? Would it not be better to provide for two Vice-Chairmen instead of one, so that the responsibility of leading the Town Council could be better shared among the three MPs? Clause 19(f) states that the Town Council can accept donations. By extending the definition, may I ask the Minister to clarify whether the Town Council can raise funds publicly to help finance some of its development projects. I think the Bill should allow for this flexibility to allow Town Councils to raise funds to organize and undertake non-estate maintenance type of projects that will help to enrich the life of the constituents. Clause 39 states that a Town Council can raise loans chargeable upon its assets. By "assets", I presume it means all types of assets except immovable property under the care of the Town Council but belonging to the HDB, like food centres, playgrounds and so on. Can the Minister please clarify this definition? Clause 41 states that the Government will provide a grant to the Town Council. I think the Minister has explained that the quantum of grant will be dependent on the age of the estate and the types of buildings. I think it should also be a function of the amount of defects that currently exist in the estate. By this, I mean the magnitude of roof/wall leakages, rusty water tanks, sunken car parks and so on. On the other hand, will the HDB make good these defects and discharge all its liabilities before it hands the estate over to the Town Council? Sir, I would also like to know from the Minister the financial procedure in the granting of grants to a Town Council. Will the quantum of the grant to each Town Council be dependent on budget proposals submitted by the Town Council to the Minister every year? Finally, Sir, may I know whether the Government will come to the rescue of the Town Council in the event that the council runs into debt or is declared insolvent through the incompetence or wrongdoing of its members? Or worse still, its members absconded with the money belonging to the Town Council. The Bill is silent on this but I think it is in the interest of the public that the Minister should help explain the consequences and implications of such a scenario.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, from what has been said by various Members of the House this morning, I think there is still some nagging doubt or concern in the minds of Members about whether in practice the Town Coun- cil concept works. Speaking as a person who has run a Town Council for almost 22 months, let me perhaps throw some light on the operation of a Town Council and the results that we have achieved. We should examine this from different perspectives. First, since our objective is to have a more active democracy, participation by the people, then does it come with a cost? In other words, does it mean that Town Councils will result in higher costs? Higher than what? We have to define that point. What is the point of reference? The only point of reference is the HDB, ie, the HDB's performance all these years. This being the case, then the pilot Town Councils in the last 21 months have demonstrated that they have not performed poorly as compared to the HDB. The income that we receive as Town Councils is exactly the same as what HDB gets in service and conservancy charges, in terms of subsidy from the Government. In the area of maintenance of car parks and hawker centres, we receive from the HDB what they have been spending on car parks and hawker centres. So what has been the result? The three pilot Town Councils have been able to work within this income. Yesterday the Chairman of the Ang Mo Kio East Town Council disclosed that his Council chalked up a surplus of $946,400 in the first year of operation, and $538,000 in the first nine months of the second year. He could have added that his Council, in addition to the surplus, accumulated a sinking fund. The Ang Mo Kio South Town Council has also accumulated a sinking fund and recorded an overall surplus. I have the figures for my own Town Council which had earlier been circulated to all Members. My Town Council, the Ang Mo Kio West Town Council, is the smallest of the three Councils with 15,400 residential units and shophouses. After setting aside approximately 25% of our income for the sinking funds, we had an operating surplus of about $750,000 in the first year of operation and about $188,000 in the first nine months of the second year. So after 21 months, we have an operating surplus of about $940,000 and we have $3,150,000 in our sinking funds. In total, we have a net balance of $4.1 million. Compare this with HDB's former performance, HDB has no surplus. HDB has no sinking fund. So this means that the pilot Town Councils have demonstrated that they have done well from the financial point of view. Thus Town Councils are viable. A more active democracy does not, in this case, mean higher costs. You will be interested to know what the picture will be like if there had been no Government grant for the first 21 months of our operation, and that Government grant amounted to $2.65 million. If we do not include this, our net balance would not be $4.1 million but we still have $1.45 million surplus. What it means is that we would not have been able to set aside the full 25% of our income as sinking fund but nevertheless we are still doing well. We have accumulated a surplus as compared to the HDB. Some of you may ask: have these surpluses been obtained at a lower level of service? Yesterday, the Chairman of the Ang Mo Kio East Town Council disclosed the results of a survey conducted by his Council, and it showed a very high level of satisfaction. In Ang Mo Kio West, we have not cut back on services. We have provided essentially what the HDB has provided to the residents and now there is closer supervision both by the staff as well as by the residents. We feel that it is a good idea to monitor the number of unsolicited complaints to give us a measure of the level of satisfaction of the residents. This will tell us whether we are doing well to the satisfaction of the residents or not, and the results are published in our latest Town News, a copy of which has been distributed to our Members. You can see from page 3 of our Town News that there is a firm downward trend, indicating that the residents have lesser and lesser complaints. I may update you on the latest month's figures that we have, and that is for May, and that figure is 324. So you can see that it is still going down. Next, let us look at the participation aspect. Have residents been given the opportunity to participate? The answer is yes. All the pilot Town Councils have been encouraging feedback and sugges- tions. They have made it convenient for residents to do so through suggestion boxes put up at RC centres, phone-in, or direct mail, and the Town Councillors themselves have been able to put forward many ideas and, in the last 21 months, to implement them. Although it is only 21 months, Ang Mo Kio is now beginning to look different from two years ago. Those who are familiar with Ang Mo Kio can compare what Ang Mo Kio was like two years ago and now. I am sure that even within this short period of time there are already visible differences. I am confident that given a period of five years, the ideas of Councillors and residents will turn Ang Mo Kio into a more interesting and livelier town. Better facilities inevitably mean more cost. The key question here is: are residents prepared, if they want better facilities, to pay for those better facilities? In his speech yesterday, the Minister has said that residents may be willing to pay for part of the cost for better facilities. I am pleased to say that residents are willing to pay for better facilities. One of our blocks will have an enhanced Residents' Corner. They have agreed to pay for part of the cost. This was reported in yesterday's Lianhe Zaobao. Speaking of Residents' Corners, here is an area where the effect of HDB and the effect of Town Councils would be different. In the case of HDB, when they implement Residents' Corners, they have to implement it for every block in Singapore. We as a town council feel that this kind of expenditure is not necessary. We should build Residents' Corners at places where they are going to be useful and we have put up to the HDB to give us that portion of the funds and let us decide how and where we shall implement Residents' Corners. I have so far not had a favourable response from the HDB but the matter is still being pursued. But it shows that if we spend money where it is needed, then we do not spend money unwisely and therefore we can save money from the limited income that we may have. The fact that residents are prepared to pay for better facilities shows us that there is now a gradual transformation in the attitude of residents. We see the beginning of an awareness that common areas can be used for the benefit of residents and that they can enjoy these better benefits or facilities by contributing to its enhancement. We have on our part to inculcate a sense of social responsibility. We intend to help residents to break away from old habits that cause damage to the environment. We do so not by resorting merely to pressure and penalties but by explanation and recognizing needs. The wall murals that we have painted were not aimed solely at livening up the void decks but also to discourage football playing in the void decks, a common problem in our housing estates, and also the problem of vandalism. So far, all the murals that we have painted are in good condition. This means that people will respect a piece of art or something of value. So that is the direction in which we go towards fostering better habits among residents. We recognize, however, that outlets must be provided for children. For playing football, we are looking at suitable sites for the building of five-a-side soccer pitches, and we may include this in our proposed leisure park which is also described in our latest Town News. Improvements to the living environment may not come solely from fees paid to the Town Council or residents' contributions. We feel that for certain projects it is justifiable to ask the Government for funds, perhaps through the URSC, and we will be putting up our requests to the relevant authority soon. We may also derive income from providing services. Yesterday, my colleague, the Member for Yio Chu Kang, raised the question of private housing estates within Town Council boundaries. I see no reason why we cannot provide TV reception services - antennae - in HDB blocks to the residents in private housing estates for a fee. We service the TV antennae in HDB blocks. It is easy enough for us to extend the service. Furthermore, grass-cutting in small private estates could be more cost-effective if included in Town Council contracts. Why not derive the benefits of scale and perhaps give the Town Council a small income? These are some of the things that can be done. Residents, essentially, look for a Town Council to maintain their flats in good condition. Let me give you one example of what a Town Council can do. With age, buildings would show a certain amount of wear and tear. One of the problems that have arisen in HDB flats is the problem of spalling concrete. It is because we as a Town Council recognize or define the problem and managed to establish the extent of this problem, and our ability to work as a group to bring this matter up with the HDB, that we have got a solution to this problem. In fact, the problem of spalling concrete is being attended to right now in Ang Mo Kio West Town Council. And because of the representations made by the Ang Mo Kio West Town Council, the repairs would also be done to all the HDB estates elsewhere. This is a benefit to HDB residents that has come out of the operation of Town Councils. So, after this period of experience, I can confidently say that Town Councils work, the concept itself works, and there is still a large area of creativity among residents that we have not yet tapped. And we intend to tap on this area of creativity to make Ang Mo Kio West a livelier and more pleasant place to live in. I am surprised that the Member for Potong Pasir is unprepared to do this, and that now what he means by a model constituency is that he should be the Member of Parliament and the Government should do it for him. Now if the Government is not going to do it for him, the residents should do it for him. That is what he is saying in his half-hour speech.

Not true.

Now, let me turn to some technical details of the Bill. My Councillors, as I am sure all Town Councillors, are very interested to know what are the implications of clause 50. What does it mean when it says Town Councillors are deemed to be public servants for the purposes of the Penal Code? I would appreciate, if possible, an answer from the Minister. Next, clause 39 allows the Town Council to borrow money. Whilst the Town Council is accountable to the residents, is it implicit that ultimately Government will be accountable if a Town Council defaults? This is a question which has been raised by other Members. I think the intention is that if you give the Town Council autonomy, they should bear the responsibility. But an impression may be created in the minds of people that, finally, if there is mismanagement, it is the Government that would pick up the tabs at the end of it all. And this impression may be reinforced by the requirement that Town Council accounts are in fact, to be audited by the Auditor-General or his representatives. And one final point - the question of fines. Clause 38(6) allows the Town Council to levy fines for late payment or non-payment of fees. The question is: if a fine is levied and if the person does not pay the fine, then by the due process of law does it mean that the person could be jailed if he persists in not paying up the fine or his arrears?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members for their comments on this Bill. I note that, with the exception of the Member for Potong Pasir, all the Members are in support of the principles and the philosophy behind the Bill. The kinds of problems that they have raised really relate to the detailed workings of the Town Council. Some of the problems have cropped up in the pilot projects; others are being anticipated by Members. Since the Member for Potong Pasir is the only one who has, in fact, raised the question of the basic philosophy behind the Bill, perhaps I should deal with that first. He made the point that the main reason behind the Bill is a political one. I have made it clear yesterday in moving the Second Reading of this Bill that there are two purposes behind this Bill. One, of course is to enable residents in Housing Board estates to determine for themselves the kind of environment that they want to create. I said there was also an important political reason behind it, and the First Deputy Prime Minister spent much time, in fact, he made a longer speech than I did, explaining the political philosophy behind this Bill. So we are not trying to slip in the reasons behind the Bill quietly with a paragraph in my speech. We drew attention of the House as well as Singaporeans to the basic thrust of the Bill. The question really is not whether or not there is a political purpose. The question is: is the purpose a good one for Singapore? Will it make for a better Singapore? Will it make for a more stable and secure Singapore? Will it make for a better life for our citizens? That is the question that we ought to ask. And I am surprised that the Member for Potong Pasir never addressed these questions. All he said was, "There is a political reason." So what? Does a political reason necessarily make the Bill a bad Bill, a law bad for Singaporeans? We went to some extent to explain why it is absolutely essential that Singaporeans should be made to think carefully before they cast their vote, that they should vote sincerely and ask themselves very clearly what is in their interest, and not allow temporary misgivings or dissatisfactions with the Government to cloud the issue. We make this very clear and we stand by it. This Town Councils Bill is an important step in the political development of Singapore, and it is important that Members of Parliament should be given this responsibility. My colleague, the Minister for Trade and Industry, has explained. Our Parliament is unlike Parliaments in other countries which may sit for maybe nine months continuously. Members of Parliament come every day to Parliament. Ministers have their offices in Parliament. That is not the way we operate in Singapore. We sit, maybe, on the average, three or four days a month, except for the long sessions during Budget or when we debate the President's Address. So our Members of Parliament, frankly, spend most of their time not in Parliament but in the their constituencies looking after the interests of their constituents. I was quite dumbfounded when the Member for Potong Pasir said that the MP is an outsider in his constituency. Yes, he may live outside the constituency but surely the MP must know the problems, the aspirations of his constituents. He should be there several times a week, as Members of Parliament from the PAP do. They spend several times a week and they come to know in great detail the problems of their constituents. Who can better represent the problems in the daily life in Housing Board estates than the MP? That is the reason why we think that the Member for Parliament is eminently suitable and qualified to lead the Town Council. Yes, we do look for people who are competent, people of integrity, people who are qualified. The Member said that it is not necessary to be a trained specialist in order to be a Member of Parliament or in order to be a leader of a country. All that the leader of a country needs to know is to know how to employ good managers, people who know the job. If leading a country were that simple, then every country would have good leaders. All that they need to do is to know who to employ. That requires intelligence. It requires intelligence to know when there is a problem, what the problem is and what kind of people need to be employed to tackle the problem. The Member reminds me of the story of a candidate who was accused by his opponent during election hustings of being mediocre and the candidate said, "Well, what is wrong with being mediocre because I represent the mediocre people?" Now, if that is the way that a country is to be ruled, I think the country can be in serious problems. In many ways, leading and managing a country is like leading and managing a large corporation. I am not saying it is so in all ways, but in many respects it is the same. Nobody would suggest that because an electronic company employs 3,000 workers, therefore that company should be managed by the workers. In fact, that was the philosophy at one time in Singapore when workers formed cooperatives. And since they said the cooperatives were meant to serve the workers, therefore it should be managed by workers. And most of the cooperatives got into very serious problems. In fact, I think none of them really survived. The reason why the NTUC Cooperatives have survived, thrived and grown is because they have allowed competent, qualified specialists and managers to manage the Cooperatives. So it is for the country. MPs are national leaders. They are not just here to debate. They are here to help make good decisions. From the MPs, the Cabinet is formed. They make the policy decisions. It is absolutely important that they should be men of integrity and competence and of proven experience. We are not saying that every MP should be a graduate, but every MP must have these qualities that I have just described. So MPs in Singapore do have a role to play at a national level. But in actual practice, they are very much involved in the daily life and problems of their constituents. And I think it is absolutely logical and proper that MPs should be the leaders of the Town Councils. I will come back to the Member for Potong Pasir's detailed points that he raised after I have dealt with the points raised by other Members. One of the points that has been raised by a number of Members relates to the type of activities that will be handed over to the Town Council and particularly a number of MPs, including the Members for Chong Boon and Jalan Kayu, raised the problem of car parks. They were under the impression that the car parks run by the HDB are a good source of revenue and therefore this should be given to the Town Councils. There is provision for the car parks to be handed over for management by the Town Councils, but they will not be handed over for free. In fact, the car parks, as presently managed by the HDB, with the kinds of rates that they charge, ranging from $25 to $50 per month depending upon whether it is a covered or open car park, or an hourly rate of 60 cents to $1.20 cents depending upon where the car park is, do not give a reasonable return on the cost of building these car parks. If the HDB is going to hand over the car parks to the Town Councils for management, the HDB will expect to be paid at least what it is making now from the car parks. So there is no question of a Town Council being forced to take on terms that make the car park not viable. There are established and proven incomes from car parks and HDB will work out and say, "When we lease out these car parks in the whole town, this is what we expect to be paid." If the Town Council, having taken over the car parks, manages to increase its revenue by, for example, changing the parking rates in the Town centre area or in car parks which are near markets and they make more than what the HDB has been able to make before, then they will be allowed to keep a sizable portion. We have got to work this out, but obviously it must be sufficient to make it worthwhile for the Town Councils to take over the car parks. But no terms will be imposed on the Town Council which will make it an unviable proposition. The terms will be based upon actual practice that HDB has had with these facilities up to now. But actual details will, of course, have to be worked out and will vary from Town Council to Town Council. A point was also raised about the conservancy and service charges which are in arrears. Who will be responsible? At the point that the Town Councils take over, they will become responsible for the collection. At any point, there will always be some arrears. But the Town Councils Bill gives the Town Council adequate powers, powers that are no less than what the HDB now has, for the Town Council to recover unpaid service and conservancy charges. Of course, the HDB will assist, if necessary, to recover these charges. But basically, at any point of time, there will be arrears and the authority in charge of providing the service and which has been paid the fee will have to recover the arrears, either through the Small Claims Tribunal or through the courts or, in the last instance, by actually repossessing the flat and selling it. That is, in fact, the procedure adopted by HDB and the same powers will be given to the Town Council. The Member for Jalan Kayu also raised in this respect the provision in the Bill which enables the Town Council to recover arrears either from the past owner or from the present owner. He thought that the present owner should not be liable for any debts incurred in this respect by the past or previous owner. This is the same provision that is found, in fact, in the HUDC Act and this gives the Town Council the authority or the power to go against either party. In actual practice, what will happen is that no flat will be sold in the market without the transaction going through the Housing and Development Board because the buyer will still have to satisfy the HDB that he is eligible to buy an HDB flat and the transaction, in fact, will be taken through the HDB. At that point, it is always very simple to ensure that, if there is any outstanding service and conservancy charges, these amounts are deducted before the seller gets his proceeds. I think in actual practice, it should not pose a problem. It can be worked out. The other point that has been raised by a number of Members is what happens to inherent building defects. I think the Member for Kaki Bukit even suggested that a subsidy or grant should take into account any defects. Strictly speaking, in purely legal terms, after the period of defect liability, the HDB is not responsible for any defects that emerge. But the HDB being a responsible housing authority has in the past and will continue to repair any inherent building defects. The Member for Kebun Baru mentioned the spalling of concrete from ceilings. Yes, in fact, in some cases, it is years, 5, 6, 7 years, after the flats have been sold that this problem has begun to emerge. And the Housing Board has agreed to attend to these defects at its cost, although it is strictly not required under the terms of the sale of HDB flats. I think the Housing Board will continue to adopt this practice. Where it comes to subsidies especially - grants is another question but subsidies - a number of Members expressed concern about Town Council areas which may have old flats which require much more maintenance and repairs than the newer flats. This is, in fact, an important point and it will be taken into account when the subsidies are worked out. The subsidies will take into account a number of factors. First of all, from the present service and conservancy charges, we know that in the case of l- and 2-room flats, the subsidy is very high. In the case of the bigger flats, the 5-room and Executive flats, the service and conservancy charges cover costs. In working out the subsidy for a particular Town Council, the Housing Board will, in fact, tote up the number of l-room, 2-room, 3-room, 4-room, 5-room and other types of flats and work out the subsidy according to the types of flats, so that the Town Council gets a fair subsidy. It will also take into account the age of the flats. The older flats, of course, require more maintenance and the ages of the flats will be taken into account in working out the subsidy. I would like to assure Town Coun- cils that subsidies are not going to be just worked out on a flat basis for all Town Councils, on the basis of the number of flats. We will take into account the type of flats and the age of flats in working out the subsidies. This should, I think, assure Members who will be Chairmen of Town Councils that they will not be short changed in this exercise. Some very detailed points were raised as to how sinking funds will be built up, what kind of works will have to be listed in the annual budget of the Town Councils. These are matters of detail and they can be worked out in actual practice. We are dealing with the basic principles of different aspects of a Town Council. There is no intention to impose procedures on Town Councils which will make it absolutely impossible to work. After all, the whole intention of this exercise is to enable Town Councils to work and there can be sufficient discussions between the HDB, the Ministry of National Development and the Town Councils, to ensure that whatever procedures and other aspects that are agreed on are workable. There are two other important points that were raised; one by the Member for Yio Chu Kang - whether private estates will be included within the Town Councils. The present Bill, as you can see quite clearly, excludes not only private estates but even HUDC estates which are now managed by their own management corporations. It only covers areas in a Town Council which are Housing Board areas. Whether at some future date other parts of the Town Council should be brought in, I think that is a matter to be decided later. But in the first instance and certainly in the present exercise, it will only apply to HDB estates. The other point which I think in a way related to arrears is the question of who should be responsible to collect the service and conservancy charges. The Member for Jalan Kayu made the point that it should be collected by the HDB. I think this is a very important point. We want to establish in the Town Council a close nexus between the residents and the provider of the service. At present, HDB collects the service and conservancy charges not by virtue of its position as landlord. It happens to be the landlord. But the service and conservancy charges are collected by the HDB because it provides a service. It is payment for service and it is paid to HDB in its capacity as the provider of the service. When the Town Council begins to provide the services, these charges have to be paid to the Town Council. It is important that the residents in the Housing Board estates should establish a direct relationship with the provider of the service, ie, the Town Council. This should be so even for the rental flats. Because from time to time, the Town Council may want to increase its fees or charge a special levy in order to fund a special project. The discussion and the decision should be one between the Town Council and the residents. The HDB cannot, as landlord, agree with the Town Council. We would like in practice to make it very clear and to establish in the minds of the people living in an HDB area that their relationship in terms of the fees they pay every month for service provided is with the Town Council. Where, of course, a rental flat is vacant or where a purchased flat is vacant because the HDB has purchased it, then the HDB will pay the Town Council because the HDB, as the owner of the vacant flat, is being provided a service by the Town Council. So it is right and proper that the HDB should pay the service charge to the Town Council. This is an important principle to establish. I think if the HDB collects the service and conservancy charges and then passes on to the Town Council, we will break this link that we are trying to establish. This accountability of the Town Council to the residents, and the link between the residents and the town council in terms of what they want, the kind of suggestions and ideas they may want to put up to the Town Council is important. So this will have to stay. In fact, it is a key provision in the Bill and I think the HDB should not take on the responsibility of collecting the service and conservancy charges. The Member for Bo Wen made an important point. Who will monitor the Town Councils and whether, in the course of monitoring, the Town Councils will be closely controlled by the Government? That is not the intention. The intention is to give the Town Councils as much latitude as possible for them to manage their areas. Broad principles, of course, will have to be laid down, as the Bill itself now stipulates, in terms of how they manage their finances, publication of accounts and so on. But the Town Councils will be given a lot of latitude to employ the kind of people who are necessary, to pay them the kind of fees that are necessary to get the work done. The allowances for Chairman and for Town Councillors may be prescribed by the Minister. But if the full-time workers, for example, if the Chairman of a Town Council or a Town Councillor becomes a full-time Councillor, then I think it is up to the Town Council to work out what is necessary. We would not intervene in it. And if disparities arise, it will arise because of the Town Councils themselves making the decision. I think the Member for Bo Wen expressed some fear that there may be disparities and I take it that behind that fear is the idea that perhaps Government should stipulate what the fee should be. Well, we cannot have it both ways. If the Government intervenes too much to fix the salaries and fees in every respect, then the Government will be accused of interfering and controlling the Town Councils too much. If you allow Town Councils to decide these things for themselves, of course, some disparities may arise. But I think we should take the risk of allowing such disparities to arise rather than be too close in our control of Town Councils. Basically, the idea is to allow Town Councils to make the decisions as to the kind of services they should buy and what they should pay for these services, whether the payments are to companies or to individuals. There was also a fear or concern expressed by the Member for Bo Wen and by others that the Town Councils may not be given adequate staff. It is up to the Town Councils to employ their staff. Of course, if they go to the HDB company and ask the HDB company to provide the staff or the service, then they have to negotiate with the HDB company, what they have to pay and what kind of people they will get. But this is, in fact, one of the tests of the management of the Town Councils. How they go about getting the right staff and what kind of salaries or terms they pay. This must be the responsibility of the Town Council. HDB has a pool which it will put into the HDB company. HDB will be prepared to negotiate with every Town Council, but whether HDB is, in fact, given the job or some other manager is given the job, will have to be something that the Town Council and HDB or the manager to decide and come to terms. It is a commercial decision and they must be free to negotiate and agree on commercial terms. When the Town Councils are set up, the whole idea is to rest the responsibility of the management of the funds as well as the estate with the Town Council. If a Town is mismanaged and HDB as the lessor finds that it has to move in, then there are provisions in the law for HDB to move in. But there is no question of the Government coming in to bail the Town Council out, in the sense that if funds are mis-spent, or if there is mismanagement, or people have lent to Town Councils and these borrowings have been mis-spent and the lender cannot recover, that the Government will come in and make good. If the Government is going to stand here as a safety net, then that will only encourage more mismanagement. The whole idea of this exercise is for people to be careful in the choice of their MPs as well as in the choice of the Councillors, in the sense that if the MP is good, he could choose good, honest, competent Councillors to help him. It is important that people realize that they have to live with the consequences of their choice. If they elect an MP who chooses a bunch of crooks to help him and together they run through the coffers in no time and leave the constituents in the lurch, well, they have to take the consequences. The Government is not going to come in and say, "We will take over now and make good all the losses." At the time when the HDB comes in, of course, whatever they collect from that point on will have to be used to manage the constituency, to provide the services in the constituency. And what has been mis-spent in the past, well, it is a loss. I think the responsibility and the onus must be very clear, and very clearly laid on the Chairman as well as on the Town Council as a whole. I think that is an important principle that we should not deviate from. If the Government holds out that this is an experiment, if you make a mess of it, we are going to come in and pick up the pieces, then I think we are not going to start off this whole project on the right basis. We should make the responsibility very clear. There are many other details that have been raised and I do not know whether this is the proper time to address the details because these will have to be worked out in the actual course of practice - what kind of funds can Town Councils raise, what kind of assets will they be able to accumulate over time, and how these assets can be used to borrow funds, and so on. I think these will have to be worked out. Basically, Town Councils are free to raise funds, either by way of actual contributions by the residents for particular projects or they can, in fact, embark on projects in order to raise funds like maybe to have a Fruit Fair or whatever, or borrow money from banks on the basis of assets that they have. But, of course, the lender has to ask himself whether the Town Council's assets are worth lending against and whether he is likely to get his money back. The transactions and these considerations must be left to the lender and the borrower, and the Government should not get involved in these matters. But if there is a major project and the Town Council can convince its residents to contribute by way of a special contribution, well, good luck to them. That is allowed under the provisions of the Bill. Town Council members are public servants. I think there was some concern expressed as to what this really means. This is really meant to protect the Town Councillors. In the discharge of their duties, they will be considered as public servants under the Penal Code. This means that anybody furnishing false information to a Town Councillor or anybody causing obstruction to a Town Councillor in the course of carrying out his duties, or threatening a Town Councillor will be liable to be prosecuted under the Penal Code, just as if the Town Councillor were a public servant. So it is not meant in any way to put an additional burden on the Town Councillor but it is really meant to protect the Town Councillor in discharging of his duties. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have dealt with some of the main points. But as I have said, I am aware that some detailed points have been raised. But I do not want to address them in this debate. But if any Member feels very strongly that the detailed point that he has raised has to be answered and if he can so indicate, I will try and answer the point.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Dhanabalan]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 2.30 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 1.10 pm until 2.30 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.30 pm

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of Mr Devan Nair's recent statements that he never was and is not an alcoholic, the Government was correctly advised when the Prime Minister made his statement to Parliament on 28th March 1985 that Mr Nair resigned as President because he was addicted to alcohol or was unable to perform his duties, and, if the Government was not correctly advised, whether it will withdraw the condition of a panel of doctors for Mr Nair's pension.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the circumstances of Devan Nair's resignation are set out in the White Paper (Command Paper No. 8 of 1988). It contains medical reports, exchange of letters and other documents. These facts will enable Singaporeans to understand why the Government: (1) asked Devan Nair to resign as President; (2) sent him to America for treatment for alcoholism under Dr Stanley E. Gitlow; and (3) moved in Parliament for a pension to him subject to his taking the advice of a medical panel. Devan Nair was an alcoholic. The details of his behaviour were withheld at the time because they would have embarrassed him and his family. But his recent public statements on political developments in Singapore as an active participant have made it necessary to put the facts on the record so that Singaporeans can understand his motives and see through his statements. From 13th March 1985 whilst on a visit to Sarawak, Devan Nair had behaved in a bizarre manner. He was uninhibited with women he met, including the wife of an Assistant Minister who accompanied him in a car, women at dinners, and nurses who looked after him. He outraged their modesty, propositioned them, fondled and molested them. On 15th March, the Sarawak State Physician in Kuching, Dr Wong Chee Liang, could no longer hold the position. So he phoned Devan Nair's Personal Physician, Dr John Tambyah, in Singapore, to ask that we take Devan Nair back to Singapore. In the afternoon of the 15th March 1985, I received a letter from the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Health. It was addressed to the Cabinet Secretary. At about 9.00 pm that evening, my wife and I went to see Mrs Devan Nair at the Istana Lodge. I brought my wife along because she knew Mrs Nair better than I did and it would make a difficult meeting less awkward. Mrs Nair was collected and steady. She could barely suppress her disgust and anger at the news that Devan Nair had misbehaved with women in Kuching and had collapsed because of alcohol. She said that Devan Nair was a changed man. He had been drinking heavily from time to time since 1979 when Phey Yew Kok was arrested and charged. She had wanted to tell me of it, but her elder son, Janadas, had stopped her. For the last few months, he had consumed a bottle of whisky a night, every night. She had sent the Istana servants off early every night to avoid the disgrace of their seeing him totally drunk and incapable. He would often beat her. She had expected something to happen in Sarawak and had refused to go. In the weeks before his Sarawak visit, Devan Nair had been driving a car alone out of the Istana. He had disguised himself with a wig and gone without his Security Officer or his driver to meet a German woman. One morning, after he had been out for the night, Mrs Nair went to Changi Cottage to check. She discovered liquor bottles, glasses with lipstick marks and cigarettes. Devan Nair had also brought the German woman to the Istana Lodge for dinner. When Mrs Nair remonstrated, there was a row and he had beaten her. He was not in control of himself and of his temper in his drinking bouts. He had talked of divorcing her and marrying the German woman. The next day, on 16th March 1985, I asked Mr Wong Chooi Sen, the Cabinet Secretary, to check on what Mrs Nair told me that the President had been driving out alone and in disguise, and why I was not told of this. The President's ADC and Secretary told the Cabinet Secretary that they had kept the matter from me because they feared that a report to me would lead to problems for the President. Under Article 17(2) of the Constitution, as President, Devan Nair could not be charged for any crime. The President was above the law. If he had killed someone whilst driving under the influence of alcohol, there would be a public outrage. The Cabinet discussed these developments at several meetings and decided that because of his alcoholism and his behaviour which demeaned his office, either he had to resign before he was discharged from hospital and could resume his activities, or he had to be removed from office by Parliament. On 26th March 1985, at 4.30 pm, the doctors, Rajaratnam and I met Mrs Nair and her elder son, Janadas Nair. We told them of the need for Devan Nair to resign. Mrs Nair hoped that the Government would not disclose alcoholism as the reason for his resignation as that would reflect badly on the family. I said that given what had happened in Kuching, it was better that the cause of his behaviour, namely alcoholism, be made known. Shortly after that, Rajaratnam and I met both of Devan Nair's sons, Janadas and Janamitra. The elder son, Janadas, accepted the doctors' reports. He acknowledged his father's condition. But the younger son, Janamitra, rejected the doctors' diagnosis and insisted that Devan Nair was not an alcoholic. He did not want his father to be sent for treatment in America where he would be put together with other alcoholics who, he said, were rough types. Furthermore, his father's alcoholism would reflect badly on the family, he said. Devan Nair himself preferred to go to an "ashram" (or retreat) in India, to meditate and to cure himself in the Hindu way. On the 27th March, when he had recovered sufficiently to understand the implications of what he had done, Rajaratnam and I saw him at the Singapore General Hospital. At first he refused to resign. Eventually he agreed, but most reluctantly, and only after I told him that I would move a motion in Parliament for his removal. My colleagues and I eventually persuaded Devan Nair to go to the Caron Foundation to be treated by Dr Stanley Gitlow of New York. The treatment at Caron Foundation appeared to be successful. One and a half years later, in the issue of the 29th January 1987, he denied in a letter to the Far Eastern Economic Review that he ever was an alcoholic. I asked the Cabinet Secretary to check with Permanent Secretary (Health) the meaning of this. Permanent Secretary (Health) sent the Cabinet Secretary a letter dated 14th February 1987 signed by all the seven doctors in Singapore who had managed Devan Nair in March/April 1985 confirming their previous diagnosis of alcoholism. No doctor has been cited by Devan Nair to contradict the diagnosis of alcoholism made by seven doctors in Singapore, three from the public and four from the private sector. The public sector doctors are (1) Dr Teo Seng Hock; (2) Prof Chan Heng Leong; (3) Dr Ong Thiew Chai. Their designations are published in the White Paper. The four from the private sector are: (4) Dr J.A. Tambyah, Visiting Consultant, Singapore General Hospital; (5) Dr R. Nagulendran, Consultant Psychiatrist, Ministry of Health; (6) Dr Loong Si Chin, Visiting Consultant Neurologist, Ministry of Health; (7) Dr Ho Kok Tong, Visiting Consultant Physician, Ministry of Health. This diagnosis was confirmed by Dr Stanley E. Gitlow, a specialist in the treatment of Addictive Diseases in New York and Consultant to the US State Department. Dr Robin J. Mitnick of New York did a CT Scan of Devan Nair's brain on 17th June 1985. Dr David R. Coddon of New York did an EEG on Devan Nair on 18th June 1985. Their reports, both in the White Paper, supported the findings of our Singapore doctors. Under the law, the President is not entitled to a pension. There is a provision for a resolution in Parliament for a pension in special circumstances, as with our first President, Yusof Ishak, when we moved a resolution for a pension for his widow who had done good work for over 10 years. Devan Nair had not completed one term of four years when he was forced to resign his office under less than honourable circumstances. I thought it more appropriate that the NTUC offer him a gratuity, as it was in the trade unions that Devan Nair had rendered his service. The NTUC was of the same view. They passed a resolution to that effect. Subsequently, the President of the NTUC wrote to Mrs Nair. She replied rejecting it. She said that it should have been given direct to Devan Nair. However, my Cabinet colleagues thought that a pension could be justified, provided he abided by the advice of a medical panel. I did not support this decision. Therefore, it was the Minister for Law, E.W. Barker, and not I, who moved the resolution in Parliament. He supported the majority view. To sum up: first, the Government is satisfied that the doctors were correct when they advised the Government that Devan Nair's medical condition was due to alcoholism. Second, the Government was fully justified, for the reasons given in this statement and the accompanying White Paper, in the decision to remove Devan Nair as President in March 1985. Third, the Government does not have any reason to lift the condition in the pension resolution passed in Parliament.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Motion* standing in the name of the Minister for Law, as it appears on the Order Paper. *The Motion reads as follows: That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 113), approves the reclamation of the foreshore/seabed at the southwestern coast of Sentosa containing a total area of about 22 hectares as shown coloured yellow and the dredging of about 680,000 cubic metres of the seabed as shown coloured blue on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 2/88" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. In 1973, Sir, the south-western foreshore and seabed of Sentosa was reclaimed and developed by the Sentosa Development Corporation (SDC) into beaches and a swimming lagoon. However, over the years, some of these beaches have become very narrow at high tide due to coastal erosion. At low tide, the seabed is dotted with multitudinous coral and rock outcrops which make the beaches unattractive and hazardous for swimming. As part of a project to improve its tourism infrastructure, SDC proposes to improve the beaches and lagoon area at Sentosa by reclaiming approximately 22 hectares of the foreshore and seabed shown coloured yellow and by dredging the shallow seabed areas shown coloured blue on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 2/88", copy of which is displayed in the Library of the House for the information of hon. Members. SDC, as agent of the Government, will undertake the reclamation and dredging works which are expected to be completed by November 1989 at an estimated cost of $16 million. Fill for the reclamation will be obtained from the dredging of the seabed areas shown coloured blue on the plan. The dredging of the seabed areas will provide about 680,000 cubic metres of fill material and will also improve the existing lagoon and create two new better and deeper lagoons. Imported sand from Indonesia and/or Malaysia will be used for beach formation. On completion of the reclamation, the reclaimed land will be developed into a picnic area, a hotel and an exclusive beach club which will make this part of Sentosa a beach hub of activities. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 113), approves the reclamation of the foreshore/seabed at the southwestern coast of Sentosa containing a total area of about 22 hectares as shown coloured yellow and the dredging of about 680,000 cubic metres of the seabed as shown coloured blue on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 2/88" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes to Three o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.